This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
187167 August 16, 2011
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners, vs. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS,Respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 1(RA 9522) adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories. The Antecedents In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines7 and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,"9 as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.13 In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 for what it excluded and included – its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS III’s framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal. Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the petition’s compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners’ alleged lack of locus standiand (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines’ claim over Sabah. Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioners’ assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris. We left unacted petitioners’ prayer for an injunctive writ. The Issues The petition raises the following issues: 1. Preliminarily – 1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and 2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. 2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional. The Ruling of the Court On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional. On the Threshold Issues Petitioners Possess Locus Standi as Citizens Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize petitioners’ locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.17
Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea. the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. not to Delineate Philippine Territory Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national territory"21 because it discards the preUNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties. Philippine sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago. either straight or contoured. non-compliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935. It is a multilateral treaty regulating. this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treatybased rights. noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial. embracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.. When this Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters. we have. the jurisdiction to enforce .The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition Are Proper Remedies to Test the Constitutionality of Statutes In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds. the contiguous zone. – The breadth of the territorial sea. to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. however.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas.19 and indeed. sea-use rights over maritime zones (i. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer: Article 48. recognizing coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts. namely. 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes. quasi-judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners. contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines]. the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2). the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines]. of acts of other branches of government. while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners. baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn. Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris’ technical description.18 Respondents’ submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. On the other hand. (Emphasis supplied) Thus. baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]). the contiguous zone. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory.20Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of statutes which. among others. RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III. that Spain supposedly ceded to the United States. beyond the territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris. In turn. respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition.e. carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised. and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. by tradition.22 Petitioners’ theory fails to persuade us. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.
and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77). "weakens our territorial claim" over that area. and are instead governed by the rules on general international law.26 RA 9522’s Use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to Determine the Maritime Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.216 square nautical miles. but from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago. as amended.435 32. taking into account the Treaty of Paris’ delimitation (in square nautical miles) Internal or archipelagic waters Territorial Sea Extent of maritime area using RA 9522. The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris. diminution of territory.27 Petitioners add that the KIG’s (and Scarborough Shoal’s) exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of "about 15. Petitioners’ assertion of loss of "about 15. On the contrary. and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG. coupled with a reading of the text of RA 9522 and its congressional deliberations. vis-à-vis the Philippines’ obligations under UNCLOS III.858 274. taking into account UNCLOS III (in square nautical miles) 166.000 square nautical miles of territorial waters. and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33). enlargement or. the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. lose) territory through occupation. 1avv phi 1 The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046. Even under petitioners’ theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris. immigration.106 .28 A comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime space encompassed by each law. States acquire (or conversely. as shown in the table below:29 Extent of maritime area using RA 3046. RA 9522. not Inconsistent with the Philippines’ Claim of Sovereignty Over these Areas Petitioners next submit that RA 9522’s use of UNCLOS III’s regime of islands framework to draw the baselines. increased the Philippines’ total maritime space (covering its internal waters. by optimizing the location of basepoints. belie this view. accretion.25 not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Under traditional international law typology. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III. save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS III’s limitation on the maximum length of baselines). as petitioners claim. the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago."24 UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition. territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145.000 square nautical miles of territorial waters" under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners’ argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines’ claim over the KIG. as under RA 9522.136 171. Under RA 3046." prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. cession and prescription.customs. fiscal. assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose.
The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III.669 586.994 382. petitioners’ argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. as the map below shows.Exclusive Economic Zone TOTAL 440. Section 2 of the law commits to text the Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal: SEC. 2. the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris.30 Further. where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States. 1596 and .210 Thus. Of course.
31 Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. 3046. far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First. Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. and not established by geodetic survey methods." 2. Accordingly. 5446. became imperative as discussed by respondents: 1avv phi 1 [T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS III]. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles. the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968. dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. . tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas. also known as Scarborough Shoal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or deleted from the baselines system. Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as "‘Regime[s] of Islands’ under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal. The need to shorten this baseline. these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) of the [UNCLOS III]. (Emphasis supplied) Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago." Second.A. and in addition. the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS III’s limits. We see that our archipelago is defined by the orange line which [we] call archipelagic baseline. to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps. took pains to emphasize the foregoing during the Senate deliberations: What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: "The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. Finally. adverse legal effects would have ensued. that is Scarborough Shoal." save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles. to wit: 1.34 (Emphasis supplied) Similarly. Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock Awash to Tongquil Point) is 140." So sa loob ng ating baseline. any "naturally formed area of land. As defined by R. 3. some of the points. the baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies. Ngayon.A. hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as our own. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago. itong malaking circle sa ibaba.35 Hence. up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. that is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. This is called contested islands outside our configuration. as amended by R.06 nautical miles x x x.b) Bajo de Masinloc. except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III. which states that "The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles.33 such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. particularly along the west coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on water. This will enclose an additional 2. not on low-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.195 nautical miles of water." The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate.
in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers. the right of innocent passage is a customary international law. may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage. described as archipelagic waters. expeditious international navigation.surrounded by water. situated in North Borneo. which RA 9522 did not repeal." such as portions of the KIG. hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III. operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters. xxxx 4.42 Significantly. including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath. burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Actis without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah. in violation of the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitution’s Delineation of Internal Waters As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522.40 Indeed. does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary.37 Statutory Claim Over Sabah under RA 5446 Retained Petitioners’ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. bed and subsoil. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters. 2." whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones. which is above water at high tide. domestically. (Emphasis supplied) The fact of sovereignty. subject to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise. the political branches of the Philippine government. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. now codified in UNCLOS III. however. and the resources contained therein. over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah: Section 2. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards. petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic waters. or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space. international law norms.41 In the absence of municipal legislation.44 No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to . consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters. Thus. the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines. as well as to their bed and subsoil.43 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. including the sea lanes. Legal status of archipelagic waters. Section 2 of RA 5446. qualifies under the category of "regime of islands. UNCLOS III affirms this: Article 49.38 Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 ). and the resources contained therein. bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress. – 1. including overflight. regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. if not marginal.
as well as in interpreting executory provisions of the Constitution. the recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III. and second. preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III. UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. The fact that for archipelagic States. RA 9522 and the Philippines’ Maritime Zones Petitioners hold the view that.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones. the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to Congress. WHEREFORE. The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas. More importantly. reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone. which. their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not place them in lesser footing vis-à-vis continental coastal States which are subject. we DISMISS the petition. In fact.53 UNCLOS III. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones. allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States’ territorial sovereignty. Nevertheless.47 Petitioners’ invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies)48 must also fail. are not violated by RA 9522. Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided. to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. paragraph 251 ) and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII."49 Article II provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States. it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago. based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first.absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community. in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space – the exclusive economic zone – in waters previously part of the high seas. the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiate the claimed constitutional violation. it weakens the country’s case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law. "do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x. however. the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. in their territorial sea. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III. an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II as mere legislative guides. Moreover. as embodied in RA 9522. relating to the protection of marine wealth (Article XII.54 We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners’ reading plausible. Section 2. SO ORDERED. the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it. consistent with the Constitution and our national interest. not to this Court. absent enabling legislation. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. Factoran50 treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an exception. Section 752 ). Although Oposa v. subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III. . The other provisions petitioners cite.
Article VIII of the Constitution. and for Other Purposes. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice TERESITA J. BRION Associate Justice LUCAS P." 4 One of the four conventions framed during the first United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in Geneva. 3046. . CORONA Chief Justice PRESBITERO J. excluding the Philippines. entered into force on 10 September 1964. and connecting the various islands of the Philippine archipelago. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice MARTIN S. SERENO Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. MENDOZA Associate Justice MARIA LOURDES P. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M." 3 The third "Whereas Clause" of RA 3046 expresses the import of treating the Philippines as an archipelagic State: "WHEREAS. VILLARAMA. this treaty.ANTONIO T. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. JR. as Amended by Republic Act No. have always been considered as necessary appurtenances of the land territory. between. Associate Justice ARTURO D. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. irrespective of their width or dimensions. VELASCO. RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Footnotes 1 Entitled "An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. A. all the waters around. Associate Justice JOSE C. CARPIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: RENATO C. to Define the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines. JR. forming part of the inland waters of the Philippines. 5446." 2 Entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines.
5 UNCLOS III entered into force on 16 November 1994. 10 Which provides: "The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago. paragraph 2 and Article XIII. including atolls. COMELEC. the insular shelves. Morato. and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. in accordance with article 76. and Section 16. 110 Phil. Sanidad v. Spain ceded to the United States "the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands" lying within its technical description. 14 15 16 . 165 Phil. 303 (1976). The Philippines signed the treaty on 10 December 1982." (Underscoring supplied) In a subsequent meeting. RA 9522. 3. The coastal State shall at the same time give the names of any Commission members who have provided it with scientific and technical advice. except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length. Secretary of Public Works. it shall submit particulars of such limits to the Commission along with supporting scientific and technical data as soon as possible but in any case within 10 years of the entry into force of this Convention for that State. and Sibutu and the US-Great Britain Convention (2 January 1930) demarcating boundary lines between the Philippines and North Borneo. Thus. between Spain and the United States (7 November 1900). the seabed. Article 47. Under the terms of the treaty. the States parties agreed that for States which became bound by the treaty before 13 May 1999 (such as the Philippines) the ten-year period will be counted from that date. 171. 331 (1960). paragraphs 1-3. the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. regardless of their breadth and dimensions. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. and other submarine areas. the subsoil. provide: 1. Inc." 11 Entered into between the Unites States and Spain on 10 December 1898 following the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. Allegedly in violation of Article XII. Section 8. and aerial domains. p. between. 34. Sulu. including its territorial sea. 13 Article II. 2. Section 7. with all the islands and waters embraced therein. Annex II: "Where a coastal State intends to establish. (Emphasis supplied) xxxx 6 7 8 UNCLOS III entered into force on 16 November 1994. Section 7 of the Constitution. The waters around. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. v. Kilosbayan. which took effect on 27 March 2009. Pascual v. 9 Rollo. transferring to the US the islands of Cagayan. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land. barely met the deadline. 320 Phil. 186 (1995). fluvial. consisting of its terrestrial. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles. is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. The deadline for the filing of application is mandated in Article 4. up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. Section 2. 12 The Treaty of Washington.
No. not for the impropriety of remedy but for lack of merit). G. 1596 classifies the KIG as a municipality of Palawan. 18 . 19 See e. p. Respondents add that "no State is known to have supported this proposition. 28 29 30 31 32 33 KIG lies around 80 nautical miles west of Palawan while Scarborough Shoal is around 123 nautical west of Zambales. 189793. 9189). which petitioner Magallona himself defined as "a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the uses of the sea. v. Magallona. 24 Following Article 47 (1) of UNCLOS III which provides: An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of theoutermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land. The two other factors are: "the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy and a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition. 899 (2003) citing Kilosbayan. 617 SCRA 623 (dismissing a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 830. Primer on the Law of the Sea 1 ) (Italicization supplied). 113375. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations.g." 27 Rollo. 31. Aquino III v..g. Presidential Decree No. COMELEC. 22 23 UNCLOS III belongs to that larger corpus of international law of the sea. 5 May 1994. and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. J. 144-147. Inc. G. Respondents state in their Comment that petitioners’ theory "has not been accepted or recognized by either the United States or Spain. COMELEC. (Emphasis supplied) 25 Under the United Nations Charter." Rollo. No.R. 586 (2003) (issuing the writs of certiorari and prohibition declaring unconstitutional portions of Republic Act No. 232 SCRA 110. 188078. 7 April 2010. Jr. p. pp. Based on figures respondents submitted in their Comment (id. p. 64-66. G. v. 21 Rollo. x x x x" (Merlin M. Id.R. 25 January 2010. . G. 453 Phil.. the exploitation of its resources. including atolls. Neri v. Rollo. Aldaba v. use of force is no longer a valid means of acquiring territory. at 182). 180643. Under Article 74." the parties to the Treaty of Paris. at 51-52. 9591). Guingona. is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. 9716. concurring).Jr. See note 7.R. COMELEC. 51. 26 The last paragraph of the preamble of UNCLOS III states that "matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law.17 Francisco. 611 SCRA 137 (issuing the writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional Republic Act No. Macalintal v. House of Representatives. No. 179." Id. 155-156 (1995) (Feliciano. 460 Phil. 20 See e. No. 549 SCRA 77 (granting a writ of certiorari against the Philippine Senate and nullifying the Senate contempt order issued against petitioner). 25 March 2008.R.
2. . — 1. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published. the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. 39 Paragraph 2." 35 36 37 38 Rollo. in accordance with Part II. 159. 2. Rollo. (Emphasis supplied) Article 53. An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove. Article 8 (2) of UNCLOS III provides: "Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such. suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea. Article XII of the Constitution uses the term "archipelagic waters" separately from "territorial sea. Except as provided for in paragraph 3. See Article 50. surrounded by water. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. 3. RA 9522. pp. section 3. Article 121 provides: "Regime of islands. The archipelagic State may. Section 2. Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article 50. which is above water at high tide. Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. the contiguous zone. ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters." (Emphasis supplied) 40 Mandated under Articles 52 and 53 of UNCLOS III: Article 52. UNCLOS III. Moreover. — 1. an archipelagic State may have internal waters – such as those enclosed by closing lines across bays and mouths of rivers. 56-57. without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships. — 1. Section 2. 60-64. suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters." Under UNCLOS III. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous. Right of innocent passage.34 Journal. 3. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes. expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. p. the territorial sea. 2. Senate 14th Congress 44th Session 1416 (27 January 2009). An island is a naturally formed area of land.
Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations. 12. Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and. after giving due publicity thereto. Meaning of innocent passage. 8. so far as ships are concerned. The archipelagic State shall clearly indicate the axis of the sea lanes and the traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by it on charts to which due publicity shall be given. substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by it. House Bill No. 2738. 6. — Subject to this Convention. prescribe or substitute them. Ships in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article. provided that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit points shall not be necessary. An archipelagic State which designates sea lanes under this article may also prescribe traffic separation schemes for the safe passage of ships through narrow channels in such sea lanes. In designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes. all normal navigational channels. ships of all States. Right of innocent passage. the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised through the routes normally used for international navigation. 7. (Emphasis supplied) 41 Namely. enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. when circumstances require." 42 The relevant provision of UNCLOS III provides: Article 17. 5. 10. Ships and aircraft in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate more than 25 nautical miles to either side of such axis lines during passage. Such sea lanes and air routes shall be defined by a series of continuous axis lines from the entry points of passage routes to the exit points. after which the archipelagic State may designate. an archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. (Emphasis supplied) Article 19. 11. If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes. identically titled "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES IN THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS. — . whether coastal or land-locked. PRESCRIBING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF FOREIGN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFTS EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES PASSAGE THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES AND PROVIDING FOR THE ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES THEREIN. provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate closer to the coasts than 10 per cent of the distance between the nearest points on islands bordering the sea lane. 9. within such routes. 4153 and Senate Bill No. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the archipelagic State.4. An archipelagic State may.
(d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea. good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty. territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State. (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage Article 21. good order or security of the coastal State. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace. (f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention. (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity. . fiscal. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace. (b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations. reduction and control of pollution thereof. landing or taking on board of any aircraft. (c) the protection of cables and pipelines. (i) any fishing activities. (f) the launching. in respect of all or any of the following: (a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic. or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. 2. relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea. (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations. (e) the launching. in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law. (e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State. (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State. (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State. (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind. currency or person contrary to the customs. immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State. (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State. landing or taking on board of any military device.1. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage. — 1. (h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention.
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State. Churabill and A.(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys. The Law of the Sea 127 (1999). 2. 4. In contrast. other States enjoy the freedom of the high seas. 3. both for coastal and land-locked States: 47 . other States enjoy the following rights under UNCLOS III: Article 58. enjoy. the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines. subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention. construction. aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines. adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace.V. UNCLOS III). R. Within the exclusive economic zone. (h) the prevention of infringement of the customs. defined under UNCLOS III as follows: Article 87. and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms. UNCLOS III).R. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea. The high seas are open to all States. The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations. freedom. manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards. xxxx Beyond the exclusive economic zone. It comprises. 43 The right of innocent passage through the territorial sea applies only to ships and not to aircrafts (Article 17. — 1. equality. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. such as those associated with the operation of ships. 2. fiscal. 44 Following Section 2. whether coastal or land-locked. and amity with all nations. justice. inter alia. The right of innocent passage of aircrafts through the sovereign territory of a State arises only under an international agreement. 46 Falling under Article 121 of UNCLOS III (see note 37). the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters applies to both ships and aircrafts (Article 53 (12). Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. whether coastal or land-locked." (Emphasis supplied) 45 "Archipelagic sea lanes passage is essentially the same as transit passage through straits" to which the territorial sea of continental coastal State is subject. all States. and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design. — 1. Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part. Lowe. In the exclusive economic zone. cooperation. Freedom of the high seas. Article II of the Constitution: "Section 2.
224 SCRA 792. the Court’s duty on the matter should be clear and simple: Pursuant to its judicial power and as final arbiter of all legal questions. 338 Phil.2 it should strike . is nullified. before a law. (b) freedom of overflight. 55 Article 47 (1) provides: "An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land. production. CONCURRING OPINION VELASCO. including atolls. 48 See note 13. territorial sea. 316 Phil. (e) freedom of fishing. Article 76." (Emphasis supplied) in the Area. or a clear conflict with. paragraphs 4(a). 101083.1 In the same token.. the Constitution must be demonstrated in such a way as to leave no doubt in the mind of the Court. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research." 53 This can extend up to 350 nautical miles if the coastal State proves its right to claim an extended continental shelf (see UNCLOS III. pp. subject to Part VI. 5 and 6. 546. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas. 652. to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources. Morato. in relation to Article 77). prescription or concept is infringed. JR. subject to Parts VI and XIII. and conserve such resources. Tañada v. 67-69. 54 Rollo. (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines. in an appropriate proceeding. an unequivocal breach of. adequate financial. and exclusive economic zone. The State shall also protect. and marketing assistance. both inland and offshore. 2. subject to the conditions laid down in section 2. 30 July 1993. especially of local communities.(a) freedom of navigation.: I concur with the ponencia and add the following complementary arguments and observations: A statute is a product of hard work and earnest studies of Congress to ensure that no constitutional provision. Withal. Inc. if a law runs directly afoul of the Constitution. (f) freedom of scientific research. 49 50 "The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters. Angara. G. Kilosbayan.R. 580-581 (1997). is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. and other services. and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. subject to Part VI. J. and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area. develop." 51 52 "The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen. (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law. v. No. 698 (1995).
RA 9522 delineates archipelagic baselines of the country. it does so with the understandings embodied in this declaration. xxxx . An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land. made the following "Declaration" to said treaty: The Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP] hereby manifests that in signing the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1898. in their implementation. 1930. 1982. except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length. RA 3046. was enacted in 1961 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) I. Of particular relevance to the Philippines. and the Treaty of Washington between the [USA] and Great Britain of January 2. to wit: The signing of the Convention by the [GRP] shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the [RP] under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines. undermine its sovereign and/or jurisdictional interests over what it considers its territory. made under the provisions of Article 310 of the Convention. as Amended by [RA] 5446 to Define the Archipelagic Baselines Of The Philippines and for Other Purposes. Challenged in these proceedings is the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA 9522) entitled "An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of [RA] 3046. "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines. however.6 (Emphasis added. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. as an archipelagic state. is Article 47 of UNCLOS III which deals with baselines: 1. when it signed UNCLOS III on December 10. the possibility that certain UNCLOS III baseline provisions would. to establish. up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. RA 5446 was enacted to amend typographical errors relating to coordinates in RA 3046." For perspective.7 the Philippines. xxxx 9. the Philippines having signed3 and eventually ratified4 this multilateral treaty. under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of December 10. and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans. The latter law also added a provision asserting Philippine sovereignty over Sabah. RA 3046. "a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication. The length of such baseline shall not exceed 100 nautical miles. among other things. Eight years later. As indicated in its Preamble.such law down. The Court can take judicial notice that RA 9522 was registered and deposited with the UN on April 4. Everybody is agreed that RA 9522 was enacted in response to the country’s commitment to conform to some 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) or UNCLOS III provisions to define new archipelagic baselines through legislation. 3.5 1982 LOSC aims. amending in the process the old baselines law. 2009.) To obviate. 2. including atolls. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical co-ordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. with due regard for the sovereignty of all States. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the [RP] as successor of the United States of America [USA]. As its title suggests." One of the measures to attain the order adverted to is to have a rule on baselines. however laudable its purpose/s might be and regardless of the deleterious effect such action may carry in its wake. is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
including its territorial sea. Joaquin Bernas.) According to Fr. himself a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which drafted the 1987 Constitution. fluvial and aerial domains. the draft designated the Philippines not simply as the Philippines but as "the Philippine archipelago. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines. one must look into the evolution of [Art.10 In response to the criticism that the definition was colonial in tone x x x. The waters around. Unlike the 1935 version. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied. with all the islands and waters embraced therein. S. So what or where is Philippine archipelago contemplated in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions then? Fr. and other submarine areas. the subsoil. regardless of their breadth and dimensions.8 (Emphasis added.. The [GRP] maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws. assert the country’s adherence to the "archipelagic principle.J. which became the initially approved version: "The national territory consists of the Philippine archipelago which is the ancestral home of the Filipino people and which is composed of all the islands and waters embraced therein…" . including the territorial sea. the air space. and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the [RP] over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority."9 Art. the insular shelves. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamations of the Republic of the Philippines. the seabed. decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution. I of the 1973 Constitution] from its first draft to its final form. with all the islands and waters embraced therein. the second draft further designated the Philippine archipelago. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic state over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty independence and security. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago. as the historic home of the Filipino people from its beginning.) As may be noted both constitutions speak of the "Philippine archipelago." Both constitutions divide the national territory into two main groups: (1) the Philippine archipelago and (2) other territories belonging to the Philippines. and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title. between. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines." and. and the waters appurtenant thereto. the Committee reported out a final draft. via the last sentence of their respective provisions. The waters around. I of the 1973 Constitution reads: Section 1. between. the subsoil. and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago. Bernas answers the poser in the following wise: Article I of the 1987 Constitution cannot be fully understood without reference to Article I of the 1973 Constitution. Article I of the 1987 Constitution on national territory which states: Section 1. x xx xxxx x x x To understand [the meaning of national territory as comprising the Philippine archipelago]. consisting of its terrestrial.) Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the principal ground that the law violates Section 1. (Emphasis added. however. Section 1 of the first draft submitted by the Committee on National Territory almost literally reproduced Article I of the 1935 Constitution x x x.11 After debates x x x. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. the insular shelves. such as the Kalayaan Islands. regardless of their breadth and dimensions. the aforequoted Section 1 on national territory was "in substance a copy of its 1973 counterpart.
When Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. When the [US] Government enacted the Jones Law. He said that objections to the colonial implication of mentioning the Treaty of Paris was responsible for the omission of the express mention of the Treaty of Paris.16 Under this category would fall: (a) Batanes.100 islands comprising the Philippine Islands. its mention. that this archipelago was bounded by lines specified in the treaty. which then 1971 Convention Delegate Eduardo Quintero. the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty. From the east coast of Luzon to the eastern boundary of this huge rectangle in the Pacific Ocean. the following conclusion is abundantly evident: the "Philippine archipelago" of the 1987 Constitution is the same "Philippine archipelago" referred to in Art.200 miles in length. 1900] and the treaty concluded between the [US] and Great Britain x x x. 1930. and (c) any other territory." found in the 1987 Constitution. a huge or giant rectangle will emerge. the boundaries of which archipelago are set forth in Article III of the Treaty of Paris. In literal terms. there is a distance of over 300 miles. described as belonging to the Philippines in all its history. there is a distance of over 150 miles. x x x the definition of the archipelago did not include the Batanes group[. While the Treaty of Paris is not mentioned in both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. so the nationalistic arguments went.19 . The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the [US] by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the [US] and Spain on the tenth day of December. It also announced to the whole world that the waters inside the giant rectangle belong to the Philippines – that they are not part of the high seas. Report No. being] outside the boundaries of the Philippine archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris."12 x x x (Emphasis added. together with all the islands in the treaty concluded at Washington. and that the archipelago consisted of the huge body of water inside the boundaries and the islands inside said boundaries. measuring about 600 miles in width and 1. . However. 01 of the Committee on National Territory had in fact been explicit in its delineation of the expanse of this archipelago. Inside this giant rectangle are the 7. and of the Convention of January 12. therefore. the so-called Freedomland (a group of islands known as Spratleys). It said: Now if we plot on a map the boundaries of this archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris. From the west coast of Luzon to the western boundary of this giant rectangle in the China sea. the Batanes islands would come not under the Philippine archipelago but under the phrase "all other territories belong to the Philippines."14 it is at once clear that the Treaty of Paris had been utilized as key reference point in the definition of the national territory. in order to include the Islands of Sibutu and of Cagayan de Sulu and the Turtle and Mangsee Islands. On the other hand. over which the Philippines had filed a claim or might acquire in the future through recognized modes of acquiring territory. Committee Chairman Quintero answered that it was the area delineated in the Treaty of Paris. over which a formal claim had been filed. 1900. in effect she announced to the whole world that she was ceding to the [US] the Philippine archipelago x x x. covers areas linked to the Philippines with varying degrees of certainty. Chairperson of the Committee on National Territory.What was the intent behind the designation of the Philippines as an "archipelago"? x x x Asked by Delegate Roselller Lim (Zamboanga) where this archipelago was.17 (b) Sabah.13 which pertinently reads: Section 1. the Hare-Hawes Cutting Law and the Tydings McDuffie Law. being "a repulsive reminder of the indignity of our colonial past. I of the 1973 Constitution which in turn corresponds to the territory defined and described in Art. it in reality announced to the whole world that it was turning over to the Government of the Philippine Islands an archipelago (that is a big body of water studded with islands). 1 of the 1935 Constitution.18 As an author puts it. which replaced the deleted phrase "all territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title"15 found in the 1973 Constitution. The delineation of the extent of the Philippine archipelago must be understood in the context of the modifications made both by the Treaty of Washington of November 7.) From the foregoing discussions on the deliberations of the provisions on national territory. the deletion of the words "by historic right or legal title" is not to be interpreted as precluding future claims to areas over which the Philippines does not actually exercise sovereignty. between the [US] and Spain on November [7. the phrase "all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
742. or worse. revises the definition on or dismembers the national territory. as couched. then. a marginal belt of maritime waters. By setting the baselines to conform to the prescriptions of UNCLOS III.000 hectares inside the base lines. petitioners parlay the theory that the law in question virtually weakens the country’s territorial claim over the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Sabah. we should consider."24 Most important to note is that the baselines indicated under RA 9522 are derived from Art. May I say it was the unanimous view of delegations at the Conference on the Law of the Sea that archipelagos are among the biggest gainers or beneficiaries under the Convention on the Law of the Sea. to the same effect.225 hectares outside the base lines and 141. Baselines are used for fixing starting point from which the territorial belt is measured seawards or from which the adjacent maritime waters are measured. In this light there would be an additional area of 141. Art. RA 9522 aims to mark-out specific base points along the Philippine coast from which baselines are drawn to serve as starting points to measure the breadth of the territorial sea and maritime zones. Through Congress.275 hectares as a total gain in the waters under Philippine jurisdiction. petitioners would have RA 9522 stricken down as unconstitutional for the reasons that it deprives the Philippines of what has long been established as part and parcel of its national territory under the Treaty of Paris. It is remarkable that petitioners could seriously argue that RA 9522 revises the Philippine territory as defined in the Constitution.531. it is recognized that countries can have territories outside their baselines. the laying down of baselines is not a mode of acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state exercises sovereignty. not the acquisition or cession of territory. Far from having a dismembering effect. that under the archipelagic principle. RA 9522 has in a limited but real sense increased the country’s maritime boundaries. for UNCLOS III is concerned with setting order in the exercise of sea-use rights. the .351. equivalent to 45. Thus. 47 of the 1982 LOSC which was earlier quoted. Lest it be overlooked.050 hectares. From a pragmatic standpoint.23 Similarly. RA 9522 did not surrender any territory. your Committee on Foreign Affairs does not hesitate to ask this august Body to concur in the Convention by approving the resolution before us today. is measured from the baselines extending twelve (12) nautical miles outward. Speaker. 57 of the 1982 LOSC provides that the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) "shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. which in turn seeks to regulate and establish an orderly sea use rights over maritime zones. be it coastal or archipelagic. To reiterate. under the UNCLOS III regime.211. the whole area inside the archipelagic base lines become a unified whole and the waters between the islands which formerly were regarded by international law as open or international seas now become waters under the complete sovereignty of the Filipino people. both of which come under the category of "other territories" over the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. but also in terms of the vast resources that will come under the dominion and jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines. And let it be noted that under UNCLOS III. How this situation comes about was extensively explained by then Minister of State and head of the Philippine delegation to UNCLOS III Arturo Tolentino in his sponsorship speech22 on the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa with the LOSC: xxxx Then. Petitioners would also assail the law on grounds related to territorial sea lanes and internal waters transit passage by foreign vessels.Upon the foregoing perspective and going into specifics. it is up to the political branches of the government to supply the deficiency. as petitioners would insist at every turn. total 93.21 The baselines are set to define the sea limits of a state. constitutes an abdication of territory. the territorial sea. petitioners argue that the constitutional definition of the national territory cannot be remade by a mere statutory act. as supplemented by the aforementioned 1900 Treaty of Washington or. These gains in the waters of the sea.20 As another point. 45. the constitutional provision on national territory. Pushing their case. Since the 1987 Constitution’s definition of national territory does not delimit where the Philippine’s baselines are located. therefore. Or as the ponencia aptly states. It cannot be over-emphasized enough that RA 9522 is a baseline law enacted to implement the 1982 LOSC. They are drawn for the purpose of defining or establishing the maritime areas over which a state can exercise sovereign rights. the advantage to our country and people not only in terms of the legal unification of land and waters of the archipelago in the light of international law. Mr.800 square nautical miles inside the base lines that will be recognized by international law as Philippine waters. is broad enough to encompass RA 9522’s definition of the archipelagic baselines.
RA 9522 even harmonizes our baseline laws with our international agreements. Pacta sunt servanda.Philippines has taken an official position regarding its baselines to the international community through RA 3046. thus: Section 3. As a signatory of the 1982 LOSC. such as the Philippines. 7160. To emphasize. Consider: Other countries such as Malaysia and the United States have territories that are located outside its baselines. thus. Aside from setting the country’s baselines. Republic Act No. it behooves the Philippines to honor its obligations thereunder. The usual underlying consideration in this partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or reciprocal undertaking. Such a classification serves as compliance with LOSC and the Philippines’ assertion of sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal. It may be that baseline provisions of UNCLOS III."31 Thus. A declaration by the Court of the constitutionality of the law will complete the bona fides of the Philippines vis-a-vis the law of the sea treaty. There is nothing in RA 9522 indicating a clear intention to supersede Sec. RA 9522 is. states may decide to surrender or waive some aspects of their sovereignty. Art. without limitation. As part of the Philippine territory. is a state "constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands."29 The allegation that Sabah has been surrendered by virtue of RA 9522. yet there is no territorial question arising from this arrangement. which supposedly repealed the hereunder provision of RA 5446. the classification of KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as falling under the Philippine’s regime of islands is not constitutionally objectionable. On the premise that the Philippines has adopted the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. 46 are doubtless islands not forming part of the archipelago but are nevertheless part of the state’s territory. The Philippines’ sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal are. if strictly implemented. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion. Having KIG and the Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine baselines will not diminish our sovereignty over these areas. not correct for petitioners to claim that the Philippines has lost 15. a basic international law postulate that "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith."28 The exacting imperative of this principle is such that a state may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Petitioners obviously have read too much into RA 9522’s amendment on the baselines found in an older law.000 . The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah. they shall be considered as a ‘regime of islands’ under Article 121 of the Convention." (emphasis supplied) The "other islands" referred to in Art. But this actuality. Romulo. In setting the baseline in KIG and Scarborough Shoal. 1596. situated in North Borneo. thus.27 treaties and international agreements have a limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing and absolute nature of sovereignty. When the Philippines deposited a copy of RA 9522 with the UN Secretary General. As held by the Court in Bayan Muna v. the contiguous zone. we effectively complied in good faith with our obligation under the 1982 LOSC. in no way diminished. Section 2. without more. in its Sec. RA 9522 states that these are areas "over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction. 30 It may well be apropos to point out that the Senate version of the baseline bill that would become RA 9522 contained the following explanatory note: The law "reiterates our sovereignty over the Kalayaan Group of Islands declared as part of the Philippine territory under Presidential Decree No. 2 of RA 5446. baselines are used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea.25 as amended by RA 544626 and RA 9522. as amended. without limiting our territory to those confined within the country’s baselines." It is. the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Contrary to petitioners’ contention. quite explicit in its reiteration of the Philippines’ exercise of sovereignty. a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution. can hardly provide a justifying dimension to nullify the complying RA 9522. over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. may have an imposing impact on the signatory states’ jurisdiction and even their sovereignty. sovereignty and jurisdiction over all portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including. 3. is likewise unfounded. otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. 46 of UNCLOS III in fact recognizes that an archipelagic state. instead of being in the nature of a "treasonous surrender" that petitioners have described it to be. By their voluntary acts.
Therefore. since under the LOSC the Philippines supposedly must give to ships of all states the right of innocent passage and the right of archipelagic sea-lane passage. which are explained below: To safeguard. 51 to 53. the 1982 LOSC enumerates the rights and obligations of archipelagic party-states in terms of transit under Arts. with due regard for the sovereignty of all States. the succeeding Sec. ." On the other hand. Rights of passage through these archipelagic sea lanes are regarded as those of transit passage: (1) An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove. The Philippines maintains its assertion of ownership over territories outside of its baselines. The adverted Sec. 1596. II of the Constitution. Art. It does not affect the Philippines’ other acts of ownership such as occupation or amend Presidential Decree No. to me. which declared KIG as a municipality of Palawan. A cursory reading of RA 9522 would belie petitioners’ posture. 8. Having 15." This brings me to the matter of transit passage of foreign vessels through Philippine waters. All told. l6 underscores the State’s firm commitment "to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. In context. as seen in its Protest32 filed with the UN Secretary-General upon the deposit of RA 9522. Again. We take judicial notice of the effective occupation of KIG by the Philippines. The fact that the baselines of KIG and Scarborough Shoal have yet to be defined would not detract to the constitutionality of the law in question. not territory. ships of all nations––be they nuclear-carrying warships or neutral commercial vessels transporting goods––can assert the right to traverse the waters within our islands. in explicit terms. UNCLOS III pertains to a law on the seas. does not translate to a surrender of these waters. Article 53 gave the archipelagic state the right to regulate where and how ships and aircraft pass through its territory by designating specific sea lanes. Even China views RA 9522 as an assertion of ownership.square nautical miles of territorial waters upon making this classification. Indeed. petitioners have read into the amendatory RA 9522 something not intended. the general balance struck by [Articles 51 and 52] between the need for passage through the area (other than straits used for international navigation) and the archipelagic state’s need for security. to reiterate. and exposes the Philippines to marine pollution hazards.33 LOSC recognizes "the desirability of establishing through this Convention. To repeat. these twin provisions will supposedly be violated inasmuch as RA 9522 accedes to the right of innocent passage and the right of archipelagic sea-lane passage provided under the LOSC. The resolution of the problem lies with the political departments of the government. Apropos thereto. not well grounded. in relation to Sec. petitioners allege that RA 9522 violates the nuclear weapons-free policy under Sec. Art." Following the allegations of petitioners. 8. II of the 1987 Constitution declares the adoption and pursuit by the Philippines of "a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. 16. a legal order for the seas and oceans x x x. Petitioners even point out that national and local elections are regularly held there. suitable for safe. (2) All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes. continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea. As part of its Preamble. the concerns raised by the petitioners about the diminution or the virtual dismemberment of the Philippine territory by the enactment of RA 9522 are. The classification of KIG as under a "regime of islands" does not in any manner affect the Philippines’ consistent position with regard to sovereignty over KIG.000 square nautical miles of Philippine waters outside of our baselines. RA 9522 simply seeks to conform to our international agreement on the setting of baselines and provides nothing about the designation of archipelagic sealane passage or the regulation of innocent passage within our waters.
and connecting the islands of the [Philippine] archipelago. therein stating : [H]istorically. (emphasis supplied) .)46 More importantly. the right of innocent passage. As succinctly explained by Minister Arturo Tolentino.. in terms of geographic reality. between and connecting. such waters are not covered by the jurisdiction of the LOSC and cannot be subjected to the rights granted to foreign states in archipelagic waters. expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. i.) Hence. which are outside the jurisdiction of the 1982 LOSC. (Emphasis supplied."35 the Philippines has consistently maintained the conceptual unity of land and water as a necessary element for territorial integrity. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines and removes straits connecting this water with the economic zone or high seas from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation. archipelagic sea-lane passage. 7.43 and traditional fishing rights. 6 and 7 of the Declaration state: 5.45 was abundantly made clear by the Philippine Declaration at the time of the signing of the LOSC on December 10. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. the Government x x x maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws. which were so drawn as to preserve the territorial integrity of the archipelago by the inseparable unity of the land and water domain.42 over flight. the landward waters embraced within the baselines determined by RA 9522. the Government states that all waters around.40 Accordingly. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty. To reiterate. like the Philippines. rather than islands with water around them.. the Indonesian Government issued the Djuanda Declaration. the Philippines maintains the sui generis character of our archipelagic waters as equivalent to the internal waters of continental coastal states. So it was that in 1957.g. between. 6. all waters around. or that area of the ocean comprising 12 miles from the baselines of our archipelago. regardless of their breadth and dimensions.39 (Emphasis supplied. In view of the territorial entirety and of preserving the wealth of the Indonesian state.e. independence and security. regardless of their breadth and dimensions. the integrity of the Philippine state as comprising both water and land was strengthened by the proviso in its first article.e.37 and the preservation of its maritime resources. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. the islands or parts of islands belonging to the Indonesian archipelago irrespective of their width or dimension are natural appurtenances of its land territory and therefore an integral part of the inland or national waters subject to the absolute sovereignty of Indonesia."38 Indonesia.34 But owing to the geographic structure and physical features of the country.36 national security (which may be compromised by the presence of warships and surveillance ships on waters between the islands).(3) Archipelagic sea lanes passage is the exercise in accordance with the present Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous. 1987.44 Our position that all waters within our baselines are internal waters. by the ratification of the 1987 Constitution on February 2. decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution. the Indonesian archipelago has been an entity since time immemorial. In other words.. the essence of the archipelagic concept is "the dominion and sovereignty of the archipelagic State within its baselines. e. where it is "essentially a body of water studded with islands.41 which is allowed only in the territorial seas. it is deemed necessary to consider all waters between the islands and entire entity. has expressed agreement with this interpretation of the archipelagic concept. 1982. i. viz: "The waters around. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. 1avv phi 1 x x x On the ground of the above considerations. paragraphs 5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential decrees of Proclamation of the republic of the Philippines. between.
contrary to petitioners’ allegations. revise. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: all cases in which the Constitutionality or validity of any treaty. VELASCO. 9 J. Far Eastern University. instruction.htm> (visited July 28. J. modify. v. 608 SCRA 636. Id. Batongbacal. or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. 02 of the Committee on National Territory. G. Bernas. May 8. the designation of baselines made in RA 9522 likewise designates our internal waters. 1984. The Filipino people. Id. 6 UNCLOS. in exchange for the international community’s recognition of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. PRESBITERO J. the Philippines’ ratification of the 1982 LOSC did not matter-of-factly open our internal waters to passage by foreign ships. December 10. 1972. 1982. ordinance. The Metes and Bounds of the Philippine National Territory. 2 Under Art. law. JR. Associate Justice Footnotes 1 League of Cities of the Phil. Bernas. COMELEC. supra note 7. supra note 7.In effect. 2009. through which passage by foreign ships is not a right. or regulation is in question. 01 of the Committee on National Territory. Bernas. 1982. but may be granted by the Philippines to foreign states but only as a dissolvable privilege.) 3 December 10. 47. Citing Report No. I of the 1935 Constitution which included "all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction. Harmonized with the Declaration and the Constitution. 176951.. S. In view of the foregoing. Bernas. (Emphasis supplied. international or executive agreement. presidential decree. Art. Sec.J. Supreme Court of the Philippines. the Supreme Court is empowered to review. et al. 5 of the Constitution. at 14. 2011). No. Session February 15. 10 11 12 13 14 15 The history of this deleted phrase goes back to the last clause of Art. either in the concept of innocent passage or archipelagic sealane passage. supra note 7. 2008. See J. . 7 8 See J. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Commentary 57 (2003). at 9. order. proclamation. 4 5 Available on <http://www.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx. of Delegates Amanio Sorongon.R. Citing Report No. December 21. An International Law and Policy Perspective. veritably rejected the quid pro quo petitioners take as being subsumed in that treaty. citing Speech. I vote to DISMISS the Petition. reverse. Philippine Judicial Academy Third Distinguished Lecture. at 14.un. at 10. June 27. J. at 11-14. by ratifying the 1987 Constitution. VIII.
Acts and Resolution. 1949. 272 SCRA 18.R. Philippine Constitution 62 (2011). pp. J. Ku. The Philippine National Territory: A Collection of Related Documents 513-517 (1995).un. C. null and void. Art. UNCLOS III. Vol. supra note 7. Int’l L." The Chinese Government hereby reiterates that Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands have been part of the territory of China since ancient time. De Leon. citing 1958 U. 23 J. Res. Doc. 23:463. 2011). citing deliberations of the February 17. supra note 7. 24 25 26 27 G. February 1. 469. 4-5. the contiguous zone. Any claim to territorial sovereignty over Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands by any other State is. Id.P. September 18. Lotilla. May 2. 1968. Conference on the Law of the Sea. 1972 Session. 13/42. 118295. Bernas. 2011. citing Tañada v. 159618. 1961. . Summary Records 44.16 J.R. the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from the archipelagic baseline drawn in accordance with Art. A/Conf.. 6th Regular Session. Bernas.pdf> (visited August 9. Art.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/DEPOSIT/ communicationsredeposit/mzn69_2009_chn. Id. at 22. Petition. G. 34 35 Id. June 17. The People’s Republic of China has indisputable sovereignty over Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands and their surrounding areas. supra note 8. See J.N. 47. 48 of UNCLOS III provides that the breadth of the territorial sea. 33 Supra note 5. Angara. citing Batasang Pambansa.." Available on <http://www. Id. Declaration of Rights and Duties of States Adopted by the International Law Commission. No. Batongbacal. 1997. 28 Art. 26. therefore. 13. 57. No. The Archipelagic States Concept and Regional Stability in Southeast Asia. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 22 R. Case W. 1969. 29 30 31 32 The Protest reads in part: "The above-mentioned Philippine Act illegally claims Huangyan Island (referred as "Bajo de Masinloc" in the Act) of China as "areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction. at 16. 17 18 19 20 21 Art.
The Regime of Islands in International Law. Art. "The Archipelagic Regime in Practice in the Philippines and Indonesia – Making or Breaking International Law?". Explanatory Note and An Act to Repeal Section 2 (concerning TS baselines around Sabah disputed with Malaysia) of the 1968 Act No. cited in B.G. 8. Vol. Art. 6-7. LOSC. I.. Art. p. and Congress of the Philippines. pp. quoted in C. . supra note 38. Ku. 2. II. LOSC. LOSC. par. No. 53. Kwiatkowska. supra note 34. 51.. 1. Ingles. No. 5446. and also pars. S. Senate. 103 (1990). 65. AD Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Art. citing J. 264. 1987 Constitution. Art. 38 UNCLOS III Off. Kwiatkowska. 53. "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Implications of Philippine Ratification. Vol.D. International Law 284 (1965). par. 37 Id. par. Arts. 61-62 and 66. 52 and 54. LOSC. LOSC.36 Hiran W. B. 6. 2." 9 Philippine Yil (1983) 48-9 and 61-2. Rec. First Regular Session. International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law. par. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Cf. 232. 2. Jayewardene. at 470. at 112. 39 4 Whiteman D.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?